Dawkins' Preachings

If I am reading your post correctly, some of your points are:1. Science cannot say anything about the existence of a god, so it is reasonable to believe in one. 2. Science is not the only way of knowing things anyway. 3. There is evidence that god exists that science cannot address and atheists are wrong for putting it to the test of science. 4. "Unbelievers" are unimaginative drones for for not accepting "knowledge" obtained without evidence. 5. Accepting the ideas of science without considering the beliefs of the one who proposed them is somehow a fallacy. I will reply by corresponding number.1. You are correct. Science doesn't tell anything about god or orbiting unicorns. But if one accepts the possible existence of a god on these terms, one must give equal credence to all possible forms of existence, including a totally naturalistic universe. Are you willing to do that?2. Science is the only system that exists that produces results that are reliable. If a stone is dropped from a height of 32 feet on earth, it will fall to the ground in one second. It doesn't matter where or when you do it. A body dropped from 96 feet will take two seconds, and so on. Thus, science tells us that falling bodies accelerate (on earth and up to terminal velocity) at a rate of 32 feet per second per second. We know this. No system of subjective opinions can result in such information because such opinions vary from person to person. So yes, science is the only way we have of more then one person "knowing" a thing, unless you can show that the good feeling you get from literature is the same as another person's.3. Anything that cannot be out to a test is not evidence. It is opinion. Neither I nor anyone else has any reason to give your opinion any credence. You could be insane or a fool.4. As above, what you are calling evidence is actually opinion. How dare you call me names for not accepting your opinion as evidence? It is my opinion that I am not a drone. How can you show your opinion is any more valid then mine?5. Ah... yes. This is my favorite ground. If you read any of my old posts, I'm all about the logic. Which fallacy is being committed? It seems to me that the exact opposite of what you say is true. It is a fallacy to address the person behind an argument or their beliefs rather then the argument itself.There are more examples of bad logic and poor thinking in this rambling post, but I will be satisfied with responses to the points I have raised. Perhaps we can address the others, including the flawed basic assumptions, later.

I am one of those atheists who is generally in agreement with Dawkins, so I am a member of the group you were ignorantly attacking. I don't agree that believers need to grow up; individuals can hold whatever ideas they choose. I do assert that they have no right to expect anyone else to believe them, accept their ideas, or even take them seriously without evidence.Also, before going any further, I must protest your quote mining. This is a fine example of the disgusting tactics of creationists. You quoted me without pointing out that I was paraphrasing you, trying to make it look as if I in some way agreed with you. That is dishonest and despicable, even if done in a weak attempt at humor.To proceed, your main error is a simple one. Your opinion is not of equal value to the results of scientific enquiry and to claim so is hubris of the highest order. You can be of the opinion that 2+2=5 all you want. It won't change the math. Similarly, you can be of the opinion that you "can have a real walk with god", but that opinion is no more valid or better supported then 2+2=5.Another choice fault is that common knowledge is a good way of getting information about the world. It simply isn't. The facts of quantum physics are an example of this.So, I do not say that you need to grow up by leaving belief in god. I am saying that you need to grow out of the idea that your personal opinions and beliefs have any value or validity for other people or the world at large.This message has been edited by mikehager, 12-01-2004 05:33 PM

I note with interest but without surprise that you do not address my comment on your quote mining.I never said that your opinion was that 2+2=5, I said that a person could easily hold that view, contrary to the facts. That was an illustration of the fact that people can have strong opinions that are wrong. The second point that I was attempting to make was that there is as much evidence that 2+2=5 as their is that some god exists... none.Yes, I am quite good at logic. So, let us approach this purely as a logical question. I purpose that you formulate your point in a concisely worded form so that we can address it as an argument. Your contention is that knowledge does not require evidence. Show us the logic you claim to have used to reach that conclusion. Understand that I may ask for definition of some terms before proceeding. You invoked logic, lets see you use it.In closing, I do not worship science. The very idea is ludicrous. I do not worship anything.I look forward to your formulation.